10
a
12
13.
ue
158
20
aL
22
23
26
25
26
27
28
Law Office of Ritchie M.Lewis SBN #231100
8608 Utica Ave., Su 212 : FILED
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 SUPERIOR COT CF GALRDRNK
Ph: 909 948-9890
Fax: 909 948-9820 JUN 15 2015
‘Attomey for Marla Pendleton P.CLARK @&
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Marla Pendleton, CaseNo.? WABI WSA,
Plaintisf COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
vs. 1. Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code
1102.5
County of Riverside,
‘DOES Ithrough 25, inclusive,
Defendants
COMES NOW Plaintiff Marla Pendleton (hereinafter “Pendleton” alleges causes of
action against the County of Riverside (hereinafter “Riverside”) and DOES 1 through 25 as
follows:
1. Plaintiff is an individual who is and at all relevant times has been a resident of
Riverside County, California
2. Defendant Riverside is a public entity in the State of California duly organized under
the laws of the State of California, and provided, among other things, employment to employees.
County of Riverside is a governmental entity, which came into legal existence in or about 1893.
3. Defendant County of Riverside conducted business in the County of Riverside, State of
California and was and remains plaintiff's employer. The County of Riverside principal place of
business was in the City of Riverside, California. Plaintiff was demoted by Defendant from her
former position of Fiscal Manager with Defendant.
1
sozstyn B10
a
12
13
4
15
16
uv
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of those Defendants sued herein as.
Does | through 25 and for that reason has sued such Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff
will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify said Defendants when their
identities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on such information and
belief alleges, that each of said DOES named as a Defendant in this action is in some fashion
liable and legally responsible as alleged in this Complaint for the injuries and damages Plaintiff
has sustained.
5. In doing the things alleged in this Complaint, all of the Defendants were employees,
agents and or alter egos of their co-Defendants. As agents and employees, they acted within the
course and scope of such employment and agency. The conduct of each of the Defendants and
their agents and employees was authorized and /or directed and /or was subsequently ratified by
cach of their co-Defendants. Defendants are vicariously liable for all employees, agents, and or
servants performing services on behalf of them.
6. The allegations of this complaint on information and belief are likely to have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, defendants, and each of them, when acting as a principal, were negligent in the
selection and hiring of each and every employee, agent and or servant and every other defendant
as its agents, servant or employee.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each and every one of the
wrongful acts of the employees, agents, and servants and or Doe defendants, were performed
under the instructions and approval, express or implied of the County of Riverside.
9. Prior to filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff presented a claim to the County of Riverside
pursuant to Calif. Government Code 911.2. Riverside acted on the claim by rejecting it on
December 18, 2015. This complaint is timely filed within the six (6) months after the rejection of
the claim.
10, Plaintiff, remains an employee for Riverside although she was demoted from her
former position of Fiscal Manager. Consistent with the demotion Plaintiff's pay was reduced by
210
un
32
13
4
as
16
uw
1s
19
20
21
22
23
28
25
26
27
28
$4.00/hour. Three anonymous emails (attached) were circulated amongst County employees
accusing executive management, for the County of Riverside of illegal activity. The first email
‘was disseminated on or about June 24, 2014 and among other things, accused Auditor Controller
Paul Angulo of spending over $100,000 on personal Harvard and Berkley training at taxpayer’s
expense. It also accused Mr. Angulo of spending over $50,000 of taxpayer's money to finance
MPA graduate programs for Frankie Ezzat and another management level employee but will not
pay for advanced degrees for other employees.
11. As the perceived illegal activity of misappropriating, deceit and or concealing the use
of government funds by a County executive became personal to Mr. Angulo and Ms. Ezzat, Ms.
Ezzat became concerned with the source of the email. At all relevant times, Ms. Ezzat reported
to Mr. Angulo.
12, Plaintiff's co-worker, Josetti Fields was asked on or about June 25, 2014 by Ms.
Ezzat, who directly supervised Plaintiff, if Ms. Fields knew who sent the disparaging email on
June 24, 2014, To evidence the County’s obsession with the source of the email as opposed to
the accuracy thereof, Ms. Ezzat asked Ms. Fields if she could determine if the source of the email
‘was from a County or personal computer. Ms. Fields informed Ms. Ezzat in June 2014 she was
‘unaware who sent the email.
13. On or about July 7, 2014, Ms. Ezzat made her suspicions known when she asked Ms.
Fields if County employee Marla Pendleton was the source of the email and if Ms. Fields could
determine who was forwarding the email throughout the county as other departments
acknowledged receiving the June 24, 2014 email.
14, Ms. Ezzat fett so strongly that Ms. Pendleton was the email source, in early July 2014
she admitted to Ms, Fields she believed Ms. Pendleton was the source as she had access to all of
the information contained in the email. Ms. Ezzat added that two County managers were also of
the opinion Ms, Pendleton authored the June 24, 2014 email, County Manager Ms. Elias told Ms.
Fields, Ms. Ezzat was of the opinion Ms, Pendleton was responsible for creating and sending the
email. It had become common knowledge Ms. Ezzat was blaming Ms. Pendleton.